The Trial of German Major War Criminals

Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
16th April to 1st May, 1946

Q. You disagreed, as you have stated, with Hitler and the
Party on many issues. Did you ever express this disagreement
or did you conform to Hitler's instructions at all times?
Can you in particular make statements about your attitude,
for instance, to the Jewish question, the Church question,
the Gestapo question, the Freemason question, etc.?

A. I might say in advance that Hitler never gave me any
order or any instructions which would have been in
opposition to my views, and that I also never did anything
which was in opposition to my inner convictions. From the
very beginning I did not conceal my convictions, not only
when speaking to my circle of friends and to larger Party
circles, but also in addressing the public, and even when
speaking to Hitler personally.

I have already stated here that as early as the Party purge
of 30 June, 1934, I called Hitler's attention to the fact
that his actions were illegal.

I refer, furthermore, to a document, of which unfortunately,
only half has been presented by the prosecution. It is a
written report which I personally submitted to Hitler on 3
May, 1935. I remember the date very well because it happened
during a trial run of the Lloyd Steamer Scharnhorst, at
which both Hitler and I were present.

On that day I handed him two inter-related memoranda which
together formed a unit. In the one half I made it clear that
I wanted to stop the unrestrained and constant collections
of money by various Party organisations, because it

[Page 436]

seemed to me that the money ought not to be used for Party
purposes, particularly Party installations, Party buildings
and the like, but that we urgently needed this money for
State expenses which had to be paid and which, of course,
included the rearmament question as well.

The second half of this report dealt with cultural
questions. The defence and I have tried for months to get
this second half of the document from the prosecution, since
they had submitted the first half of the document here as
evidence. It had not been possible to obtain that second
half. I must therefore confine myself to communicating the
contents.

I want to say in advance that, of course, I could only bring
forward such charges in regard to the mistaken cultural and
legal policy of the Party and of Hitler, when reasons
originating in my own department gave me the excuse to
submit these things to Hitler. I stated that very serious
harm was being done to my foreign trade policy by the
arbitrary and inhuman cultural and legal policy which was
being carried out by Hitler. I pointed in particular to the
hostile attitude toward the churches and the illegal
treatment of the Jews and, furthermore, to the absolute
illegality and despotism of the whole Gestapo regime. I
remember in that connection that I referred to the British
Habeas Corpus Act, which centuries ago protected the rights
of the individual, and I stated word for word that I
considered this Gestapo despotism to be something which
would make us despised by the whole world.

Hitler read both parts of this memorandum while on board the
Scharnhorst; as soon as he had read it he called me and
tried to calm me down by making statements similar to those
which he had made to me in July, 1934, when he told me these
were still the transitional symptoms of a revolutionary
development, and that as time went on this would be set
right again and disappear.

The events of July had taught a lesson, however, and
consequently I was not satisfied with this explanation. A
few weeks afterwards, on 18 August, 1935, I used the
occasion of my visit to the Eastern Fair at Konigsberg to
mention these very things in the speech which I had to make
there, and here I gave clear expression to the same
objections which I had made to Hitler aboard the Scharnhorst
at the beginning of May.

I did not talk only about the Church question, the Jewish
question and the question of despotism; I talked also about
the Freemasons, and I shall quote a few sentences from that
speech, with the permission of the Tribunal. They are very
short. I am speaking about people, and I now quote ...

Q. Just one moment. I want to tell the Tribunal that this is
the Konigsberg speech, which I submitted to the Tribunal
this morning as a document.

A. I am talking about people and I now quote:

"... people who under cover of darkness heroically smear
window panes, who brand as a traitor every German who
trades in a Jewish store, who declare every former
Freemason to be a scoundrel, and who, in the just fight
against priests and ministers who talk politics from the
pulpit, cannot themselves distinguish between religion
and misuse of the pulpit."

End of quotation, and then another sentence:

"In accordance with the present legislation and in
accordance with the various declarations made by the
Fuehrer's Deputy, the Reich Minister of the Interior, and
the Reich Minister for Public Enlightenment and
Propaganda (not to mention the Ministry of Economics),
Jewish businesses are permitted to carry on their
business activities as heretofore."

End of quotation, and then, in the last sentences:

"No one in Germany is without rights. According to point
4 of the National Socialist Party programme the Jew can
be neither a citizen nor a fellow German. But point 5 of
the Party programme provides legislation for him too;
that means, he must not be subjected to arbitrary action,
but to the law."

[Page 437]

I assumed the same attitude on every further occasion that
offered itself.

Q. One moment, Dr. Schacht, did the regime tolerate this
speech?

A. It is a good thing that you remind me of that, because in
the course of the Gisevius testimony the same question was
discussed with reference to the Marburg speech of von Papen.
As up to then my speeches were not subject to censorship -
of course I wouldn't have allowed that - this speech was
broadcast, seemingly by mistake, over the German
Broadcasting System. In that way the speech was brought to
the notice of Propaganda Minister Goebbels, and at once he
issued an order prohibiting the publication of the speech in
the newspapers. As a result, although the speech was
broadcast, it did not appear in any newspaper. But as,
fortunately, the Reichsbank had its own printing press,
which was, of course, not subject to censorship, I had the
speech printed in the Reichsbank printing press, and 250,000
copies of it were distributed to the 400 branches of the
Reichsbank throughout the country, and in that manner it
became known to the entire population.

Q. You were going to continue, were you not?

A. I wanted to go on and say that on every future
opportunity which I could find I always returned to these
points. I should like to touch upon only two more things in
this connection.

This morning I referred to these things in connection with
the letter written by me on 24 December, 1935, to the Reich
Minister of War. I should merely like to add and point out
the following words:

"The economic and legal policy for the treatment of the
Jews, the antichurch activities of certain Party
organisations, and the legal despotism associated with
the Gestapo are detrimental to an armament programme."

The same attitude can also be seen from the minutes of the
so-called small Ministerial Council for 12 May, 1936, which
have been submitted in evidence by the prosecution. It says
in these minutes:

"Dr. Schacht emphasised openly again and again that a
cultural and legal policy must be pursued which does not
interfere with economy."

I want to remark in this connection that, of course, as
Minister of Economics I always linked my arguments with the
work of the departments under the Minister of Economics.
And, as a last example, one of many others which I cannot
mention today, there is the speech on the occasion of a
celebration for the apprentices at the Berlin Chamber of
Artisans on 11 May, 1937. On that occasion I said the
following:

"No community and, above all, no State can flourish which
is not based on legality, order and discipline."

And a second sentence:

"For that reason you must not only respect the right and
the law, but you must also act against injustice and
unlawful actions everywhere, wherever you find them."

And because I made known my attitude not only to a close
circle, but also to a wider public, by fearlessly using
every opportunity to voice my views, because of this a few
weeks ago in this Court the chief of the R.S.H.A.,
Department 111, Security Service, the witness Ohlendorf, in
reply to a question, described me as an enemy of the Party,
at least since the year 1937-1938. I believe that the chief
of the Security Service, Inland Department, should know,
since he had the task of combating political opponents
inside Germany.

DR. DIX: May I point out that the statements made during the
meeting of the Small Ministerial Council on 12 May, 1936,
are contained in my document book, Schacht Exhibit 20, Page
57 of the English text, Page 51 of the German text.

And Schacht's speech to the Chamber of Industry and Commerce
on 12 May, 1937 ...

[Page 438]

THE WITNESS: You mean Chamber of Artisans.

DR. DIX: I shall refer to that later when I have the proper
document; and I now continue.

BY DR. DIX:

Q. We have talked about your participation at the Party
Rallies, and I should merely like to ask you in addition:
Did you participate in any other Party functions?

A. I do not remember that I ever participated in any other
functions of the Party.

Q. The Indictment contains the words, and this is so to
speak its tenor, the charge that you used your personal
influence and your close connections with the Fuehrer for
the aims asset forth. Did you, as far as you know and can
judge from your experience, have any influence on the
Fuehrer?

A. Unfortunately I never had any influence on the Fuehrer's
actions and decisions. I had influence only in so far as he
did not dare to interfere with me in my special financial
and economic policies. But this lack of influence of all
members of Hitler's entourage has already been mentioned by
various witnesses and so much has been said about it, that I
think I need not take up the Tribunal's time with any
further statements on that subject.

Q. What you have just said applies in the main to the
question of the influence of the Reich Cabinet, the last
meetings of the Reich Cabinet, and so forth. Various
witnesses have made statements on that subject. Have you
anything new to add?

A. I can merely add that on the whole the Cabinet did not
have the slightest influence on Hitler, and that from
November, 1937 on - this has been stated repeatedly - there
were no more meetings or consultations of the Cabinet. The
Reich Cabinet was an uncorrelated group of politically
powerless departmental ministers without the proper
professional qualifications.

DR. DIX: I should like to add that the number of the speech
to the Chamber of Artisans is Exhibit 30, Page 89 of the
English text and Page 82 of the German text.

BY DR. DIX:

Q. What was the situation regarding rearmament? Whose will
was decisive and authoritative as regards the extent of
rearmament?

A. I am without any basis for judgement as far as that is
concerned. But I have no doubt that Hitler's will here, too,
was the sole decisive and authoritative factor.

Q. That is to say, you had no influence other than that of
the credit-giver?

A. Within my ministry in so far as I administered this
ministry, I did nothing for which I would not assume
responsibility myself.

Q. Did you speak to representative foreigners about your
lack of influence on Hitler?

A . In this connection I recall a conversation with
Ambassador Bullitt in November, 1937. This conversation with
Ambassador Bullitt has already been mentioned in some other
connection, and Ambassador Bullitt's memorandum has been
presented in evidence to the Tribunal by the prosecution. I
merely refer to the sentence which refers to me:-

"He" - that is to say, Schacht - "prefaced his remarks by
saying that he himself today was completely without
influence on 'that man', meaning Hitler. He seemed to
regard himself as politically dead and to have small
respect for 'that man'."

That was in November, 1937. But if I am permitted to add to
this, I want to point out that my foreign friends were kept
constantly informed about my position and my entire activity
as regards the directing of public affairs in Germany, as I
have already mentioned once before. This will be seen on
later occasions when various instances are mentioned.

[Page 439]

DR. DIX: This morning I submitted Exhibit 22, Page 64 of the
English text.

BY DR. DIX:

Q. And now for a few special questions regarding your
position as Minister of Economics. You have already made
statements regarding the obtaining of foreign raw materials,
that is, you have quoted appropriate passages. Could not
these be substituted by home products in your opinion?

A. A portion of such raw materials could certainly be
replaced by home products. We had learned in the meantime
how to produce a large number of new materials which we did
not know about before ...

Q. Please be brief.

A. ... to produce them synthetically. But a considerable
part could not be replaced in that way and could be obtained
only through foreign trade.

Q. And what was your attitude towards the question of self-
sufficiency?

A. As far as self-sufficiency was concerned I believe that
if, at a reasonable cost, without undue expenditure, which
would have meant a waste of German public funds, and German
man-power, certain synthetic materials could be produced in
Germany, then one should do so, but that apart from this,
the maintenance of foreign trade was an absolute necessity
for economic reasons, and that it was even more necessary
for reasons of international cultural relations, and so that
nations might live together. The isolation of nations I
always regarded as a great misfortune, just as I have always
regarded commerce as the best means of bringing about
international understanding.

Q. Who was the exponent in the Cabinet of the self-
sufficiency principle?

A. As far as I know, the whole idea of self-sufficiency,
which was then formulated in the Four-Year Plan, originated
with Hitler alone; after Goering was commissioned with the
direction of the Four-Year Plan, then Goering, too, of
course, represented that line of thought.

Q. Did you express your views to the contrary to Goering and
Hitler?

A. I think it is clear from the record that I did so at
every opportunity.

Q. One incidental question: You remember that Goering
exclaimed:

"I should like to know where the 'No men' are!"

I want to ask you now, do you claim this honourable title of
"No man" for yourself. I remind you particularly of your
letter of November, 1942?

A. On every occasion when I was no longer in a position to
do what my inner conviction demanded, I said, "No". I was
not content to be silent in the face of the many misdeeds
committed by the Party. In every case I expressed my
disapproval of these things, personally, officially and
publicly. I said "No" to all those things. I blocked
credits. I opposed an excessive rearmament: I talked against
the war and I took steps to prevent the war. I do not know
to whom else this title of "No man" might apply if not to
me.

Q. Did you not swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler?

A. I did not swear an oath of allegiance to a certain Herr
Hitler. I swore allegiance to Adolf Hitler as the Head of
the State of the German people, just as I did not swear
allegiance to the Kaiser or to President Ebert or to
President Hindenburg, except in their capacity as Head of
the State; in the same way I did not swear an oath to Adolf
Hitler. The oath of allegiance which I did swear to the Head
of the German State does not apply to the person of the Head
of the State, it applies to what he represents, the German
nation. Perhaps I might add something in this connection. I
did not swear an oath of allegiance to a perjurer and Hitler
has turned out to be a hundredfold perjurer.

Q. Goering has made extremely detailed explanations
regarding the Four-Year Plan, its origin, its preparation,
its technical opposition to you and the consequences you
bore because of this opposition. Therefore we can be brief
and deal only with new material, if you have something new
to say. Have you anything to add to Goering's statements or
do you disagree on points which you remember or about views
held?

[Page 440]

A. I gather from Goering's statements that he has described
conditions perfectly correctly and I myself have nothing at
all to add unless you have something special in mind.

Q. According to your impressions and the experience you had,
when did
Hitler realise that you were an obstacle in the way of a
speedy and extensive rearmament? Did he acknowledge your
economic arguments? Was he satisfied with your policy or
not?

A. At that time, in 1936, when the Four-Year Plan was
introduced in September, I could not tell what Hitler's
inner attitude to me was in regard to these questions of
economic policy. I might say that it was clear that after my
speech at Konigsberg in August, 1935, he mistrusted me. But
his attitude to my activities in the field of economic
policy was something which I was not yet sure of in 1936.
The fact that I had not in any way participated in the
preparation of the Four-Year Plan but heard about it quite
by surprise during the Party meeting and that, quite
unexpectedly, Hermann Goering, and not the Minister of
Economics, was appointed Head of the Four-Year Plan, as I
heard for the first time at the Party meeting in September,
1936 - these facts naturally made it clear to me that
Hitler, as far as economic policy with reference to the
entire rearmament programme was concerned, did not have that
degree of confidence in me which he thought necessary.
Subsequently, here in this prison, my fellow defendant Speer
showed me a memorandum which he received from Hitler on the
occasion of his taking over the post of minister and which,
curiously enough, deals in great detail with the Four-Year
Plan and my activities and is dated August, 1936. In August,
1936, Hitler himself dictated this memorandum which has been
shown to me in prison by my fellow defendant Speer, and I
assume that if I read a number of brief quotations from it -
with the permission of ...

DR. DIX: I just want to give an explanation to the Tribunal.
The original of this memorandum we received about three
weeks ago from the camp commander, through the kind
mediation of the prosecution; it was found in the camp
dustbin. We then handed it in for translation so that we
might submit it now. But the translation has not yet been
completed. I shall submit the entire memorandum under a new
exhibit number when I receive it.

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.